Who do you think are you fooling Pitchfork?
Go and check yourself for albums in generals at web.archive.com
(not a fan of Be Here Now, but this it's a shame)
>p4k
>>61777632
Be Here Now is pretty alright, but yeah after that album Oasis fell out of critical and public favor and became a joke in the music industry. Liam ruined his voice, Noel quit drugs and forgot how to write a good song, the last original band members abandoned ship, etc.
>>61777714
it's not just a Be Here Now discuss. It's about changing votes of an album like "who the fuck cares, just give it 2 points less"
where is the credibility?
>>61777763
Because it was uncool to like oasis at that point so they went back and changed the score to be lower so they would have more "cred" but not enough for people to really notice.
>>61777833
anyone knows about a similar treatment for an album by p4k?
>>61777890
the reverse for discovery, gave it like a 5(?) and then said it was the 2nd best album of the 2000s
>>61777632
Is this the pitchfork hate thread?
>>61778283
What's wrong with that exactly?
>>61778283
Yeah it should of been a 10
>>61778283
Achtung Baby is a good album and U2 were a good band.
>>61778283
Accurate score
>>61778283
Sorta of
Pitchfork is literally beyond even ironic following anymore, they're completely dead and gone. It's over.
Andrew W.K. - I Get Wet
Original: 0.6
New: 8.6
At the Drive-In - Relationship of Command
Original: 6.4
New: 8.3
Bright Eyes - Fevers and Mirrors
Original: 5.4
New: 9.0
Iggy and the Stooges - Raw Power
Original: 10.0 [Deleted]
New: 8.3
J Dilla - Donuts
Original: 7.9
New: 10.0
Lambchop - Nixon
Original: 6.5
New: 8.3
Lifter Puller - Fiestas and Fiascos
Original: 3.2 [Deleted]
New: 8.8
Miles Davis - Kind of Blues
Original: 10.0 [Deleted]
New: 6.6
Miles Davis - Sketches of Spain
Original: 10.0 [Deleted]
New: 8.0
Neutral Milk Hotel - In the Aeroplane Over the Sea
Original: 8.7 [Deleted]
New: 10.0
Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds - No More Shall We Part
Original: 7.0 [Deleted]
New: 8.0
Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds - The Boatman's Call
Original: 6.6 [Deleted]
New: 9.3
Nine Inch Nails - Pretty Hate Machine
Original: 5.6
New: 9.5
Oasis - Be Here Now
Original: 7.9 [Deleted] (July 1997)
New: 5.9 [Deleted] (September 1997)
Spiritualized - Lades and Gentlemen, We Are Floating in Space
Original: 7.6 [Deleted]
New: 10.0
Swans - Children of God
Original: 9.4 [Deleted]
New: 7.0
The Beach Boys - Pet Sounds
Original: 7.4 [Deleted]
New: 9.4
The Microphones - The Glow, Pt. 2
Original: 9.2
New: 9.3
Weezer - Pinkerton
Original: 7.5 [Deleted]
New: 10.0
================================================================
Deleted 10.0's
12 Rods - Gay?
Iggy and the Stooges - Raw Power
Miles Davis - Kind of Blues
Miles Davis - Sketches of Spain
KISS - Alive!
Walt Mink - El Producto
XTC - English Settlement
>>61778450
7 of the top 10, jesus christ
>>61778479
You know, it could happen that some reviewers like albums that others don't.
Pitchfork was fun when they were le pretenious indie website, now that they're just a Tumblr/SJW/meme-rap embracing/Black Lives Matter publication it's just disgusting and there's no value to it anymore.
Like comparing old Pitchfork to new Pitchfork is like comparing old MTV to new MTV, it's completely different, the only common thread being the brand name.
I looooooove Pitchfork :^)
Why was this changed from an 8.7 to an 8.0? Seems like such an arbitrary thing.
>>61778549
>>61778506
Then why replace the score? :^)
>>61777632
And now there's no more a review of be here now on p4k! Seriously WTF?
>>61778486
It was especially absurd on the best 80s tracks list. Nearly every single from Thriller was on it, and Purple Rain took the number one spot.
>>61778639
"replace". More like rereviewing
Something happened between October 2002 and December 2002 where they changed a bunch of the scores.
>>61778479
Reissue scores don't count, that's not what this is about.
>>61778681
What OP and >>61778549 and >>61778689 are talking about are changing the scores on the exact same review.
>>61778718
Exactly
>>61778718
Then those are bad examples because most of them were made by different reviewers
>>61778741
Not for >>61777632 and for>>61778549
'cos they have the same reviewers
>>61778741
That's why I said that reissue scores don't count, they're by different reviewers. What OP and >>61778549 (You) and >>61778689 (You) are talking about are changing the scores on the exact same review which makes no sense.
>>61778787
(and yes those two posts are me, thus the (You))
>>61778787
oh yea they do that because they are scared of pulling a rolling stone shit
